Record of Decision 

Tier 1: Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

August 2013

Prepared by:

For more information contact:

Andréa E. Martin

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20

Washington, DC 20590
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

i

Contents

Summary........................................................................................................................................................................1

1.0 Project Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2

2.0 NEPA Process .................................................................................................................................................2

3.0 Purpose and Need...........................................................................................................................................3

4.0 Alternatives......................................................................................................................................................4

4.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed............................................................................................5

4.1.1 Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives ...................................................................6

4.1.2 Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives ........................................................................7

4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study in the Tier 1 EIS...................................................10

4.2.1 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................................................................10

4.2.2 Build Alternative ................................................................................................................11

4.3 Selected Alternative.........................................................................................................................14

4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative............................................................................................16

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects and Measures to Avoid and Minimize Harm...................................................17

5.1 Transportation .................................................................................................................................18

5.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions..................................................................................19

5.3 Agricultural Resources ....................................................................................................................19

5.4 Socioeconomic Environment...........................................................................................................19

5.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................20

5.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities.................................................................................................20

5.7 Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................................20

5.8 Noise and Vibration .........................................................................................................................20

5.9 Air Quality........................................................................................................................................21

5.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal ...........................................................................................22

5.11 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................................22

5.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas .........................................................................22

5.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties .......................................................................................................23

5.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality..........................................................................................23

5.15 Waterways and Water Bodies .........................................................................................................23

5.16 Wetlands .........................................................................................................................................24

5.17 Water Quality...................................................................................................................................24

5.18 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................................24

5.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils .....................................................................................................24

5.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife ...........................................................................................................25
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

ii

5.21 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................................25

5.22 Energy Use and Climate Change ....................................................................................................26

5.23 Construction Impacts.......................................................................................................................26

5.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...............................................................26

5.25 Short-Term Use Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment....................................................26

5.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................27

5.27 Interim Implementation Phase Impacts ...........................................................................................29

5.28 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures .....................................................................................30

6.0 Permits...........................................................................................................................................................33

7.0 Summary of Comments on the Tier 1 Final EIS ............................................................................................34

8.0 Corrections to the Tier 1 Final EIS.................................................................................................................35

9.0 Decision.........................................................................................................................................................35

10.0 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................37

Tables

Table 2-1. Milestones in the NEPA Process for the Project...........................................................................................2

Table 4-1. Counties Traversed by Routes Alternatives in the Corridor..........................................................................5

Table 4-2. Intercity Passenger Rail Services Operating Within or Adjacent to the Corridor.........................................11

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Impacts ....................................................................................................................17

Table 5-2. Potential Mitigation......................................................................................................................................30

Summary of Final EIS Comments................................................................................................................................34

Figures

Figure 4-1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Route Alternatives .................................................................................6

Figure 4-2. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Build Alternative...................................................................................12

Figure 4-3. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Station Stops .......................................................................................14

Figure 4-4. Implementation Phases .............................................................................................................................16
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

1

Summary

This is the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an 

operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, with regard to the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study conducted by the Iowa 

Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) in cooperation with the Illinois Department of 

Transportation (Illinois DOT). Iowa DOT proposes to implement the expansion of intercity 

passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, 

Nebraska (the Project) subject to the approval of appropriate authorities. 

FRA has served as the federal Lead Agency for the environmental review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Federal Cooperating Agencies for the process have included 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG); the U.S. Department of 

the Army-Rock Island Arsenal (RIA); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR); 

and the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (Iowa SHPO). Federal agencies with specific 

review, consultation, and/or permitting roles also include, but are not limited to, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).

FRA and Iowa DOT used a tiered environmental process for the Project. Tiering is a phased 

environmental review process that is commonly used in the development of complex projects. 

With a tiered approach, the Tier 1 NEPA document evaluates impacts of a broad-scale project 

with focus on more qualitative than quantitative impacts on specific resources. Following 

completion of the Tier 1 NEPA document and the associated decision document, Tier 2 NEPA 

documents are developed to evaluate quantitatively the environmental impacts within one or 

more specific logical sections or phases of the Project, which would be developed through 

separate but related projects.

In making this Tier 1 decision, FRA considered the information and analysis contained in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) dated October 2012 and the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) dated May 2013 for the Tier 1 Project (referred to 

collectively hereafter as the EIS Documents). FRA also considered comments from agencies, 

tribes and Native American groups, and the public received during the scoping process and the 

public comment periods for the EIS Documents. 

FRA has prepared this ROD in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR part 1500) and FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999). Specifically, this ROD: 

• Provides background on the NEPA process leading to the June 2013 publication of 

the Final EIS, including a summary of public involvement and agency coordination. 

• States and reaffirms the Project’s Purpose and Need. 

• Identifies the alternatives considered by FRA in making a decision at the Tier 1 level 

for the Project, including the environmentally preferable alternative. 

• Identifies the Selected Alternative for the Project. 

• Summarizes the environmental benefits and adverse effects of the Selected 

Alternative. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

2

• Summarizes the comments received on the Final EIS. 

• Discusses the measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm, and the future 

evaluations for Tier 2 studies. 

• Presents the FRA Decision, determinations, and findings on the Project and identifies 

and discusses the factors that were balanced by FRA in making its decision. 

1.0 Project Introduction

Iowa DOT proposes to expand intercity passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, through 

Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska. The Chicago to Omaha Corridor 

(Corridor) is approximately 500 miles long and consists of tracks currently owned and operated 

by four rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha: BNSF Railway (BNSF), Iowa Interstate 

Railroad (IAIS), Union Pacific Railroad (UP), and Amtrak. The Project would include 

construction of new main track, sidings, and connection tracks, as well as upgrades to existing 

track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired passenger train service reliability 

and safety. The Project also includes improvements to railroad crossings, signals, and stations.

The EIS Documents considered and evaluated several route alternatives along existing railroads 

connecting the Chicago and the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area.

2.0 NEPA Process

The Tier 1 NEPA process for the Project began formally in February 2012. This and other 

milestones are shown in Table 2-1. Agency Scoping Meetings were held February 21 and 22, 

2012; an online open-house public meeting was held from February 13 to April 16, 2012; and the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS was published in November 2012.

Table 2-1. Milestones in the NEPA Process for the Project

Milestone Date

Agency and Public Scoping Meetings February 2012

Notice of Intent March 2012

Public Meetings on Alternatives Analysis Report May 2012

Final Scoping Report July 2012

Notice of Availability and Publication/Circulation of Tier 1 Draft EIS November 2012

Public Hearings: Chicago, Des Moines, & Council Bluffs December 2012

Publication of the Tier 1 Final EIS May 2013

Notice of Availability June 2013

The Tier 1 Draft EIS presented: the purpose and need for the Project; the range of route 

alterantives and the alternatives screening for these routes; the existing environmental setting;

potential adverse and beneficial effects from Project implementation; and potential measures to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. 

The Tier 1 Draft EIS also informed resource agencies, decision makers, interested parties, and 

the public about the differences between the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative 

carried forward for evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. FRA circulated the Tier 1 Draft EIS for 

45 days for public review and comment and public hearings were held in Chicago, Illinois and 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

3

Des Moines and Council Bluffs, Iowa. In addition, an online open house meeting was held from 

February 13 to April 16, 2012 to provide opportunities for the public to comment on the Tier 1 

Draft EIS. 

EPA published the Notice of Availability for the Final EIS in the Federal Register on June 7, 

2013. The Final EIS addressed changes to the Project as a result of public and agency comments 

on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

3.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Project is to provide competitive passenger rail transportation between 

Chicago and Omaha to help meet future travel demands in the Study Area. The Study Area 

consists of the five previously established passenger rail routes between Chicago and Omaha that 

pass through the states of Illinois and Iowa, and is 500 feet wide on each side of the existing rail 

centerline. The Project would create a competitive passenger rail transportation alternative to the 

available automobile, bus, and air service and would meet needs for more efficient travel 

between major urban centers by:

• Decreasing travel times

• Increasing frequency of service

• Improving reliability 

• Providing an efficient transportation option

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort

• Promoting environmental benefits, including reduced air pollutant emissions, 

improved land use options, and fewer adverse impacts on surrounding habitat and 

water resources

The need for the Project stems from the increasing travel demand resulting from population 

growth and changing demographics along the Corridor as well as the need for competitive and 

attractive modes of travel, as follows:

• There is an increase in travel demand as population in the Study Area is increasing 

and becoming more urbanized, with expanded access to and demands for public 

transportation. The population is also aging and is increasingly seeking alternative 

modes of transportation. 

• Intercity passenger rail service would provide an option to highway and air travel 

between major urban centers in the face of a growing and aging population and 

increasing congestion on Midwest highways and at Midwest airports. A one-way trip 

by automobile between Chicago and Omaha along Interstate 80 (I-80) or Interstate 88 

(I-88) at posted interstate speeds would take about 8 hours during off-peak hours. The 

cost of driving round-trip between Omaha and Chicago with one day of parking in 

either Omaha or Chicago would be approximately $547 to $577 respectively.

• I-80 is also a major truck route in the region. Between 2010 and 2030, vehicle miles 

traveled in Iowa on I-80 are expected to increase by more than 65 percent. If no 

capacity improvements are made, nearly 75 percent of I-80 in Iowa would be 

bordering on unstable traffic flow, at or beyond capacity, resulting in stop-and-go 

traffic conditions in Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

4

• Air service in the Study Area is currently available between the major cities of 

Chicago, Moline, Des Moines, and Omaha. Flight times for direct service between 

Chicago and Omaha typically range from 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour and 

40 minutes, with typical ticket prices ranging from $210 to $1,400, with 2 weeks 

advanced notice.

• Bus service between Chicago and Omaha, with multiple stops, is provided by 

Burlington Trailways. Typical bus service includes two trips per day, with travel 

times ranging from 9 hours and 15 minutes for “Express” service to 9 hours and 

40 minutes for regular service. Bus ticket prices vary from $40 to $126. 

Megabus.com is a low-fare express bus service that recently added daily service 

between Chicago and Omaha with stops in Iowa City and Des Moines. Megbus.com 

provides two round-trips per day between Chicago and Omaha, and takes 8 hours and 

50 minutes.

• Current passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha is part of Amtrak’s longdistance service on the California Zephyr, with travel times of approximately 8 hours 

and 55 minutes from Chicago to Omaha, and approximately 9 hours and 36 minutes 

from Omaha to Chicago. The California Zephyr service operates one train each way 

daily over the length of the route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area 

with a stop in Omaha. Tickets purchased with 2 weeks advance notice typically cost 

$69 to travel from Chicago to Omaha and $108 to travel from Omaha to Chicago. 

• Inclement winter weather in the Study Area often creates conditions that impact both 

highway and air travel, creating a need for an alternative mode that is less prone to 

winter service interruptions.

4.0 Alternatives

The Corridor extends from Chicago Union Station, in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on the east to 

a terminal in Omaha, Nebraska, on the west. The route alternatives evaluated for the Project 

consist of the five previously established passenger rail routes and combinations of those routes 

between Chicago and Omaha that pass through the states of Illinois and Iowa. 

Each route is approximately 500 miles long. For each route, the counties that are traversed in 

Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska are listed east to west in Table 4-1. In Illinois, the alternatives run 

generally west from Chicago Union Station, which is the hub for the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative (MWRRI) to the Mississippi River and, depending on the route, is a distance of 

between 150 and 250 miles. In Iowa, the alternatives traverse west from the Mississippi River 

across the entire state to the Missouri River, a distance of approximately 300 miles. In Nebraska, 

the route alternatives terminate in Omaha, which is located at the Missouri River, the eastern 

border of the State of Iowa. Additionally, the No-Build Alternative was evaluated.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

5

Table 4-1. Counties Traversed by Routes Alternatives in the Corridor

State Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5

Illinois

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Boone

Winnebago

Stephenson

Jo Daviess

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Ogle

Lee

Whiteside

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Ogle

Carroll

Cook

Will

Grundy

La Salle

Bureau

Henry

Rock Island

Cook

DuPage

Kane

Kendall

DeKalb

La Salle

Bureau

Henry

Knox

Warren

Henderson

Iowa

Dubuque

Delaware

Buchanan

Black Hawk

Butler

Franklin

Hardin

Hamilton

Webster

Calhoun

Sac

Crawford

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Clinton

Cedar

Linn

Benton

Tama

Marshall

Story

Boone

Greene

Carroll

Crawford

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Jackson

Clinton

Jones

Linn

Benton

Tama

Marshall

Story

Boone

Dallas

Guthrie

Carroll

Crawford

Shelby

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Scott

Muscatine

Cedar

Johnson

Iowa

Poweshiek

Jasper

Polk

Dallas

Madison

Guthrie

Adair

Cass

Pottawattamie

Des Moines

Henry

Jefferson

Wapello

Monroe

Lucas

Clarke

Union

Adams

Montgomery

Mills

Pottawattamie

Nebraska Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas

4.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Five previously established passenger rail routes in the Corridor (Route Alternatives 1 through 5) 

and the combination of Route 4 and Route 5 (Route Alternative 4-A) composed the initial range 

of route alternatives proposed for consideration and evaluated for the Project. These route 

alternatives are shown in Figure 4-1, including the major cities through which they travel.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

6

4.1.1 Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Coarse-level screening was conducted to compare the merits and drawbacks of each route 

alternative against broad screening criteria. These criteria and their factors for evaluation for 

coarse-level screening were as follows: 

• Purpose and Need: Travel Demand (travel demand based on population served) 

• Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes (providing a timecompetitive route)

• Technical Feasibility (major construction efforts and freight train traffic conflicts)

• Economic Feasibility (benefit/cost ratio and project costs)

• Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges (natural and human environment)

• Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas (wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

cultural resources, and park and recreation lands)

• Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way (potential right-of-way (ROW) acquisition) 

A conservative 500-foot wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in the 

coarse-level screening. The coarse-level screening process eliminated Route Alternative 3 from 

further consideration because it would: have the highest cost; require a substantial permitting 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

7

effort; result in unacceptably high impacts on landowners because of the ROW needs; and cause 

extensive impacts on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. 

4.1.2 Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would be 

carried forward for detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, route 

alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were further screened for: their 

ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operation, and 

maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment. This 

screening relied on broad screening criteria and the factors for evaluation noted below: 

• Purpose and Need: Travel Demand (potential ridership)

• Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes (running times that are 

time-competitive)

• Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity (general infrastructure 

improvements required)

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment (alignment or grading problems to meet 

speed and capacity requirements) 

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures (conceptual costs of major structures)

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings (at-grade and grade-separated 

crossings) 

• Economic Feasibility: (high-level project costs, including operating and maintenance 

costs)

• Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts (substantial impacts on key 

environmentally sensitive areas in the categories listed below)

o Streams

o Floodplains

o Wetlands

o Farmland

o Threatened and endangered species

o Cultural resources

o Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

o Environmental justice

o Noise and vibration

o Hazardous materials

• Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way (refining conceptual ROW acquisition in 

relation to demolition/disruption of homes, businesses, farms, and historic properties)

In order to estimate potential impacts during fine-level screening, a preliminary impact area was 

identified for each route alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide throughout 

each route alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide was then applied where 

necessary to accommodate additional track needs, to promote efficient track maintenance, and to 

mitigate any operating disruptions generated by passenger trains. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

8

The fine-level screening process eliminated Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 from further 

consideration because they were neither reasonable nor feasible, as discussed below. During 

fine-level screening, the route alternatives were compared to the base case for two criteria. The 

base case represents the lowest cost or shortest travel time and varies depending on the criterion. 

Route Alternative 4 had the lowest estimated cost and was considered to be the base case for the 

preliminary cost estimate, and Route Alternative 2 had the shortest travel time and was the base 

case for the comparison of travel times. Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 were eliminated for the 

following reasons:

• Route Alternative 1 did not meet the purpose and need because it would not attract 

the necessary ridership to generate adequate revenue, would not offer a competitive 

travel time (longest and slowest alternative), would have excessive operations and 

maintenance costs, would require a major new structure over the Mississippi River, 

and its costs were excessive compared to the base case.

• Route Alternative 2 has the shortest travel time, but did not meet the purpose and 

need because it would not attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary 

revenue, would require extensive new ROW and a major new structure over the 

Mississippi River, would have excessive capital cost requirements (costing 

approximately $1 billion more than the base case) without providing any additional 

service or ridership benefits. 

• Route Alternative 4 did not meet the purpose and need because the Chicago terminus 

of Route Alternative 4 is at La Salle Street Station instead of Chicago Union Station, 

which provides the connection to the MWRRI high-speed network. Building a 

connection between LaSalle Street Station and Chicago Union Station would be 

costly, would have impacts on urban areas through which the connection would be 

constructed, and is not practical. 

Route Alternative 4 was the least costly (not accounting for a connection from 

La Salle Street Station to Chicago Union Station), would attract adequate ridership, 

and would generate adequate revenue. However, Route Alternative 4 currently does 

not have a direct connection to Chicago Union Station and does not have adequate 

capacity for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha passenger trains to travel on the 

shared commuter train routes in the Chicago urban area. Extensive track upgrades and 

additional ROW would be needed for an additional connection track and main track, 

and would require extensive acquisitions of adjacent homes and businesses. Based on 

the lack of an existing connection from La Salle Street Station to Chicago Union 

Station and the lack of capacity on the existing Metra commuter rail line as well as 

the associated cost and impacts of constructing a connection and providing additional 

capacity, the Agencies determined the Route Alternative 4 to be neither reasonable 

nor feasible.

Following publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS for the Project, FRA issued a ROD for 

the Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program (FRA, December 

2012) FRA issued signed by FRA. That ROD indicated that a connection is planned 

from Metra’s Rock Island District track to Chicago Union Station along Route 

Alternative 4. However, a FRA-required Tier 2 site-specific NEPA document will
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

9

need to be completed to evaluate the section of the alignment that includes the 

connection before the Project plans would be implemented. 

The proposed connection would require land acquisition in an urban setting. In 

addition, the capacity and level of service of the proposed connection is yet unknown, 

and requires modeling. Consequently, the potential exists that the connection might 

not be present, or may not have adequate capacity, which would affect planning and 

design for the Project. 

Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need because it would not attract 

adequate ridership or generate the necessary revenue, would require extensive new 

ROW and a major new structure over the Mississippi River, would have excessive 

capital cost requirements (approximately $1.2 billion more than the base case) 

without providing any additional service or ridership benefits. 

Route Alternative 4-A was the only route alternative carried forward for further analysis in the 

Tier 1 EIS. Route Alternative 4-A consists of Route Alternative 5 between Chicago Union 

Station and Wyanet, Illinois, where Route Alternative 5 and Route Alternative 4 cross, and 

Route Alternative 4 between Wyanet and Omaha.

Route Alternative 4-A has four distinct differences from either Route Alternative 4 or 5, 

individually: it reduces the distance between Chicago and Omaha compared to either Route 

Alternative 4 or Route Alternative 5; it incorporates direct access to Chicago Union Station 

provided by Route Alternative 5, whereas Route Alternative 4 terminates at La Salle Street 

Station, which would require construction of a rail link within the Chicago urban core to transfer 

trains from Route Alternative 4 to Chicago Union Station to avoid loss of connectivity to Amtrak 

long-distance and regional trains and the proposed MWRRI hub; the alignment of Route 

Alternative 5 between Chicago Union Station and Wyanet has fewer curves and broader curves, 

fewer at-grade crossings with other railroads, fewer movable bridges, and more multiple main 

track within the Chicago urban core, than Route Alternative 4; it provides service to the larger 

intermediate population base of Route Alternative 4, which passes through the Quad Cities, Iowa 

City, and Des Moines, than Route Alternative 5.

Below is a summary providing the rationale for carrying forward Route Alternative 4-A. When 

compared to the other route alternatives considered, Route Alternative 4-A:

• Meets Project purpose and need 

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs 

(technical and economic feasibility)

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need)

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need)

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

10

4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study in the Tier 1 EIS

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative (Route Alternative 4-A) were carried 

forward for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS and are described below. 

4.2.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative was included to provide a basis of comparison (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 

FR 28545) and would consist of the current track and operations with the present level of 

maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or operations. 

The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of intercity passenger 

rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but independently planned construction of passenger rail 

service from Chicago to Moline would still occur. This independently planned construction 

project is referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program (Program) and includes 

operation of two round-trips per day between Chicago and the Quad Cities at speeds of up to 79 

mph. 

This Program includes improvements to the BNSF line at Eola Yard; a new connection track in 

Wyanet, Illinois connecting the BNSF to the IAIS; associated track and ballast improvements to 

the IAIS corridor, including the construction of sidings, a new passenger station in Geneseo, 

Illinois, reconfiguration of the Colona BNSF/IAIS interlocking; a possible layover facility and 

track improvements at the station in Moline, Illinois; and the alterations at the Silvis and Rock 

Island Yards, with the reinstitution of the IAIS mainline track between Silvis and Rock Island 

Yards. Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program is anticipated to 

commence in 2013, and service is intended to be operational by 2015. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, other transportation projects in the vicinity of the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Project could occur independently, with 

or without Project implementation. 

Other intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago to 

Omaha Corridor, including Amtrak’s California Zephyr and Southwest Chief (both long distance 

trains) and Illinois’ state-supported, Amtrak-operated Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg services 

(regional trains with daytime schedules), are assumed to continue to operate under the No-Build 

Alternative. Table 4-2 provides the stations and cities served by the aforementioned passenger 

train services and the frequency of operations.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

11

Table 4-2. Intercity Passenger Rail Services Operating Within or Adjacent to the Corridor

Train Type of Service Frequency Route and Principal Stations Served

California Zephyr Long distance One train each 

way daily

Chicago, IL – Omaha, NE – Lincoln, NE –

Denver, CO – Salt Lake City, UT – Reno, NV –

Sacramento, CA – San Francisco Bay Area, CA

Southwest Chief Long distance One train each 

way daily

Chicago, IL – Galesburg, IL – Kansas City, MO 

– Topeka, KS – Santa Fe Area, NM –

Albuquerque, NM – Flagstaff, AZ – Los 

Angeles, CA

Illinois Zephyr Intercity One train each 

way daily

Chicago, IL – Naperville, IL – Mendota, IL –

Galesburg, IL – Macomb, IL – Quincy, IL

Carl Sandburg Intercity One train each 

way daily

Chicago, IL – Naperville, IL – Mendota, IL –

Galesburg, IL – Macomb, IL – Quincy, IL

Source: Amtrak, January 14, 2013, California Zephyr, Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area, available online at 

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/644/343/California-Zephyr-Schedule-011413,0.pdf.

Under the No-Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional transportation, such 

as commercial airline and bus services, are assumed to continue operating within the Corridor in 

the same manner as current operations. 

4.2.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative consists of the improvements associated with Route Alternative 4-A to 

accommodate up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day at maximum speeds of up to 110 

mph. The Build Alternative, shown in Figure 4-2, is approximately 475 miles long and consists 

of tracks currently owned and operated by four rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha. The 

BNSF and IAIS railways own and operate the vast majority of trackage in the Study Area, while 

Amtrak and UP own and operate relatively short distances within the metropolitan areas of 

Chicago, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs/Omaha. 

For the Build Alternative to function efficiently, improvements would be required, including 

infrastructure upgrades, at-grade roadway crossings, stations, and layover and maintenance 

facilities. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

12

The Build Alternative would include: construction of new main track, sidings, and connection 

tracks; upgrades to existing track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired 

passenger train service reliability; and installation of wayside signaling systems. 

Throughout the Corridor, connections to the existing main track would be required for meet/pass 

events, access to industries, and capacity for maintenance-of-way activities. Detailed capacity 

modeling will be conducted during Tier 2 analysis to identify more specific requirements for 

revisions of and improvements to the wayside signal system, crossovers and interlocking plants, 

and connection tracks in order to provide adequate capacity for passenger trains. 

In consideration of existing infrastructure, train traffic, roadways, urban land uses, and 

abandoned rail corridors, a few alignment options within Build Alternative were identified at the 

Tier 1 level. There are multiple alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across the 

Missouri River between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple station 

location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha that will be further identified during 

Tier 2 studies. 

The Project’s passenger rail service would continue to use existing Amtrak long-distance or 

Illinois-state-sponsored service stations at Chicago Union Station, La Grange Road, Naperville, 

Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, Illinois; and potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. New stations or 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

13

reuse and modification of existing or past stations are proposed at Geneseo and Moline, Illinois; 

Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and potentially Omaha, 

Nebraska. 

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the Des Moines 

and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, and interim layover and light maintenance 

facilities may be required at Moline or Iowa City depending on implementation strategies. 

Specific sites for layover and light maintenance facilities will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 

NEPA documents. In addition to light maintenance, heavy maintenance for locomotives and 

train sets would be required. The aforementioned Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs 

locations for light maintenance could potentially be selected to also support heavy maintenance 

activities.

There are approximately 850 highway-rail at-grade crossings along the Build Alternative. Grade 

crossing surfaces and warning systems would need to be improved to meet safety standards for 

passenger trains traveling at 110 mph. All grade crossings would undergo diagnostic studies 

during Tier 2 analysis for identification of improvement needs. The grade crossing analysis 

would evaluate all grade crossings with the potential for closure under the Build Alternative. 

Warning devices would be installed based on speed-dependent criteria. Existing warning devices 

would be reused where practical if they conform to the speed-dependent criteria.

An iterative process was conducted for determining the optimum number of round-trips per day, 

train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops for the Build Alternative. Operations under 

the Build Alternative would ultimately include a combination of standard-stop and selected-stop 

service. Selected-stop station stops would be Chicago Union Station, Naperville, Princeton, and 

Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. 

Standard-stop service would include the selected-stop locations as well as station stops at 

La Grange Road, Plano, Mendota, and Geneseo, Illinois, and Grinnell and Atlantic, Iowa. 

Figure 4-3 shows the locations of all station stops. There would be up to seven round-trip 

passenger trains per day travelling between Chicago and Des Moines, with five of these roundtrips continuing to Omaha. The passenger trains would travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, with 

travel time averaging under 7 hours from Chicago to Omaha and under 5 hours from Chicago to 

Des Moines. These travel times are competitive with the personal automobile. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

14

4.3 Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative is the alternative which the FRA finds would most closely align with 

FRA’s statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, 

technical and other relevant factors. FRA has selected the Build Alternative (Route Alternative 

4-A), which will utilize portions of the BNSF, IAIS, Amtrak, and UP railroad lines from Chicago 

to the Council Bluffs/Omaha metropolitan area. 

FRA rejected the No Build Alternative because it would not meet the project purpose and need, 

intercity passenger rail service would not be reestablished in Iowa City or Des Moines, there 

would not be an attractive alternative to highway or airline travel, and congestion of these modes 

of transportation in the Corridor would not be reduced. 

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, and on service development planning for 

this Project, FRA and Iowa DOT anticipate that the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project 

would be incrementally funded and that construction and operations would be implemented in 

phases. 

Iowa DOT is developing a Service Development Plan (SDP) for the Project, addressing the 

rationale for and details of the Project’s passenger rail service, including a plan for phased 

implementation of the service, an operating plan for each phase of service, and a capital and 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

15

financial plan for determining the types and amounts of funding needed for each phase of 

service. The SDP has an approximate 20-year planning horizon, but under phased 

implementation, full implementation of the Project would extend beyond 20 years. Therefore, the 

SDP focused on the interim implementation phase, which is the phase of the Project that would 

be implemented within this 20-year planning horizon. The interim implementation phase would 

likely include four round-trips per day at 79 mph between Chicago and Council Bluffs. Full 

implementation would be five to seven round-trips per day at 110 mph between Chicago and 

Omaha, and would be realized over many years of phased implementation as federal and state 

funds are allocated to the Project. The specific phasing of the Project is not known at this time 

but will be determined as funding is allocated to the Project. Figure 4-4 illustrates the 

implementation phases for the Project.

Based on current service development planning, the Project is anticipated to commence with two 

round-trips per day from Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 79 mph (Phase 1); Phase 1 is 

funded and would occur independently as part of the Quad Cities Expansion Program passenger 

rail project. Phase 2 would include two round-trips per day between Chicago and Iowa City. The 

Project would then be extended westward to Des Moines, with two and then four round-trips per 

day between Chicago and Des Moines. The last phase of the Project that would be implemented 

within the 20-year planning horizon of the SDP would be four round-trips per day between 

Chicago and Council Bluffs. The schedule developed for the Project’s SDP for these phases 

includes the following estimated timeframes:

• Chicago to Moline (two round-trips) – construction 2014-2015; service begins 

December 31, 2015 

• Chicago to Iowa City (two round-trips) – construction 2015-2016; service begins 

2017 

• Chicago to Des Moines (two round-trips) – construction 2020-2021; service begins 

2022 

• Chicago to Des Moines (four round-trips) – equipment procurement 2024; service 

begins 2025 

• Chicago to Council Bluffs (four round-trips) – construction 2028-2029; service 

begins 2030 

After additional service development planning is completed in the future, the service would be 

extended to Omaha; currently estimated to commence in 2040. Ultimately, the speed and the 

frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation phases up to a 

maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to Des Moines, with 

five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. Full implementation would be realized 

over many years of phased implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

16

4.4 Environmentally Preferable Alternative

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that a ROD specify the alternative or alternatives 

considered to be environmentally preferable. “Environmentally preferable” is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, 

Section 101.” In most cases this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the 

biological and physical environment, but it can also mean the alternative that best protects, 

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The impacts assessed for this 

Tier 1 EIS were based on a Tier 1 level of analysis, which does not involve detailed design and 

field surveys. The subsequent Tier 2 studies for this Project will further evaluate impacts and 

measures to avoid and minimize the impacts identified, and will be at a greater level of detail. 

The Selected Alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative based on a broad Tier 1 

review and analysis, which outlined that the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial 

adverse impacts to environmental justice populations, public health related to air pollutants and 

air toxins or substantial contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, or critical habitat of federally 

listed threatened or endangered species. In addition, impacts to park land, natural habitats, and 

cultural resources are anticipated to be minimal because of utilizing existing rail lines, thereby 

minimizing ROW acquisition.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

17

The adverse environmental effects associated with the Selected Alternative were considered to 

be less substantial than the consequences associated with the No-Build Alternative in terms of air 

quality, energy, and increased traffic congestion, and thus identified the Selected Alternative as 

environmentally preferable.

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects and Measures to Avoid and Minimize Harm

This section summarizes the potential impacts of full implementation of the Selected Alternative 

based on the detailed analysis of the social, economic, and environmental resources documented 

in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS. The potential impacts associated with each resource are listed in 

Table 5-1 and are described in more detail in the text that follows the table. 

The potential impacts reported in Table 5-1 are based on construction occurring within the entire 

Potential Impact Area. For analysis in this Tier 1 EIS, the area along all alignment options under 

consideration was evaluated as if it would be impacted, and the Potential Impact Area also 

includes a buffer to account for future flexibility in design to avoid or minimize environmental 

impacts. Consequently, the potential impacts predicted to be caused by construction are 

overestimated. For example, although 104,150 linear feet of streams are present within the 

Potential Impact Area, many feet of streams would be undisturbed where no new bridges or 

widening of existing bridges would be required. Specific resource impacts, such as whether there 

would be an adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a use of 

property under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, or an adverse effect 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would be determined during Tier 2 analyses.

Table 5-1. Summary of Potential Impacts

Resource Topic Selected Alternative 

Transportation

Competitive transportation alternative; reduced freight traffic 

interference; safety improvements; changes in travel patterns where 

unsafe at-grade crossings are closed; temporary construction 

impacts (delays, detours)

Land Use, Zoning, and Property 

Acquisitions Impacts on land use, primarily on industrial and farmland 

Agricultural Resources 3,190 acres prime farmland; 840 acres statewide important farmland

Socioeconomic Environment

Economic benefits provided through job creation, joint 

development, improved accessibility, and increased economic 

activity (Chicago to Omaha)

Title VI and Environmental Justice Beneficial economic and mobility impacts; potential impacts on 

Environmental Justice population area in Des Moines

Elderly and People with Disabilities New accessible service between Chicago and Omaha

Public Health and Safety Improvements to at-grade crossings and signals (Chicago to Omaha)

Noise and Vibration 1.7 new noise impacts per mile;

7.0 new vibration impacts per mile

Air Quality Decrease of most pollutant emissions due to increased modal shifts

Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Minor impacts on 3 Superfund (NPL) sites, 34 leaking underground 

storage tanks, 27 Non-National Priorities List sites, and 

1 wastewater treatment facility site

Cultural Resources 60 historic properties (37 buildings, 1 structure, 3 bridges, and 

19 historic districts)
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

18

Resource Topic Selected Alternative 

Parks and Federally or State-Listed 

Natural Areas 44 parks, 24 recreation areas, and 22 natural areas

Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties 44 public parks, 21 public recreation areas, 8 public refuges, and 

60 historic properties

Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality Impacts on visual resources (parks, natural areas, riparian corridors) 

and sensitive receptors in Des Moines

Waterways and Water Bodies

Streams: 104,150 linear feet

Lakes: 32 acres

Ponds: 33 acres 

Wetlands 238 acres (1 acre aquatic bed, 84 acres emergent, 33 acres scrubshrub, and 120 acres forested)

Water Quality 24 streams on 303(d) list of impaired water bodies; more impacts 

than No-Build Alternative

Floodplains 1,657 acres

Topography, Geology, and Soils More impacts than No-Build Alternative, but minor impacts on 

Loess Hills 

Natural Habitats and Wildlife

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat; aquatic habitat impacts; 

potential impacts from train/animal collisions; potential stormwater 

runoff pollution

Threatened and Endangered Species Suitable habitat for federally and state-listed species with potential 

for impact from constructing a new Missouri River crossing

Energy Use and Climate Change Long-term decrease in energy consumption and greenhouse gas 

emissions due to increased modal shifts

Construction Impacts Substantially more impacts than No-Build Alternative, but 

temporary in nature

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Substantial commitments of land, construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption

Short-Term Use versus Long-Term 

Productivity

Short-term construction impacts (including benefit of construction 

employment) and reduction in air pollutant emissions and long-term 

productivity of natural resources beyond that of the No-Build 

Alternative; improved long-term socioeconomic productivity 

through transportation network enhancement

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Reduced traffic congestion and vehicle emissions; reduced ridership 

of other transportation modes; improved air quality and safety; 

indirect impacts on parks, natural areas, and wildlife; increased 

chance of hazardous material incidents and water pollution; transitoriented development near stations

Note: All potential impacts shown are preliminary and have been evaluated at a Tier 1 level of analysis. Impacts 

will be reviewed and revised as necessary within future Tier 2 NEPA documents.

5.1 Transportation

According to travel demand and diversion forecasts for 2040, the Project would attract a 

projected ridership of approximately 1,922,800 passenger trips per year. The Project is projected 

to divert 1,366,300 automobile trips, 324,700 bus passenger trips, and 40,900 plane passenger 

trips per year, and would also generate an induced demand estimated to be approximately 

190,900 passengers per year; reducing fuel usage, air pollutants, and non-passenger rail 

transportation system congestion in the Study Area. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

19

Unsafe highway-rail at-grade crossings may be eliminated, where alternate access can be 

reasonably provided, resulting in some changes to the travel patterns of the existing 

transportation system. In some locations, where appropriate and feasible, implementation of 

grade-separated highway-rail crossings would improve the safety, traffic flow, and efficiency of 

the transportation system. Construction activities for improvements related to grade crossings 

would result in temporary impacts on the vehicular transportation system; including traffic 

congestion, delays, detours, and disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods.

Typical travel times between Chicago and Omaha, if operated at maximum speeds of up to 110 

mph, would be approximately 6.5 hours. The average speed over the approximately 475-mile 

distance would be 73 mph accounting for station stops and permanent speed restrictions for 

curves, bridges, and other railroad infrastructure characteristics. This would provide a 

competitive transportation alternative to the automobile and bus service, and would be 

competitive in fares compared to air service. A one-way trip between Omaha and Chicago would 

take about 8 hours by automobile at posted interstate speeds, approximately 9.5 hours by bus, 

and approximately 1.5 hours by plane. If the Project weren’t constructed, traffic congestion, air 

pollutants, and fuel usage would continue to worsen.

5.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions

Within the Study Area, the majority of land uses within urbanized areas are industrial in nature 

and currently adjacent to existing freight rail lines. As a result, few direct or indirect impacts on 

sensitive uses are anticipated from the Build Alterantive. Most improvements would be located 

adjacent to existing rail lines and stations. The stations along the rail line are anticipated to 

enhance transportation-oriented development. New ROW would be acquired for the Selected 

Alternative at station locations, maintenance facilities, and in areas where a new parallel track 

would be required. The Selected Alternative would also include an optional alignment 

(Des Moines Design Option 3) through Des Moines, Iowa, that would require substantial 

property acquision, and would run parallel to the Southeast Connector. Although this area is 

industrial in character, sensitive land uses that would be directly impacted include an established 

residential neighborhood and Chester Field Park. 

5.3 Agricultural Resources

Impacts of the Selected Alternative within rural areas primarily include impacts to agriculture, 

including approximately 3,190 acres of prime farmland and approximately 840 acres of farmland 

of statewide importance. These impacts would be relatively minor linear amounts that would be 

needed for adding parallel track and siding to the existing railroad grade. No severances of 

existing farmland would occur.

5.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Although the Selected Alternative would cause some temporary disruptions to existing 

businesses and neighborhoods during construction, it would provide long-term economic 

benefits to communities through job creation, potential for joint development, and increased 

economic activity. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

20

5.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Throughout most of the Study Area, there would be no anticipated disproportionate adverse 

human health or environment effect on minorities or low-income populations because a majority 

of the Project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. However, the 

Selected Alternative includes an optional alignment through Des Moines (Des Moines Design 

Option 3) that would impact both minority and low-income populations. During Tier 2 analyses, 

refinements in the design options could avoid or minimize impacts on adjacent minority and lowincome populations. The Selected Alternative would provide benefits for these populations 

through improved accessibility, mobility and employment opportunities. 

5.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities

There would be no anticipated permanent adverse impacts on the existing transportation services 

and general mobility of elderly persons and persons with disabilities because a majority of the 

Project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. The Selected Alternative 

would provide an additional means of accessible public transportation for the elderly and 

disabled populations, support expanded transit operations for efficient use of the transit system, 

and increase the availability of transportation options that connect to other cities beyond their 

immediate region. 

5.7 Public Health and Safety

The Selected Alternative would include additional track and substantial track and signal 

upgrades, to address public health and safety, and to limit conflicts with existing freight rail 

service. A centralized traffic control (CTC) system, with positive train control (PTC) integration, 

including a wayside signal system and remote control switches, would also be installed where 

needed. The Selected Alternative would provide a safe and efficient mode choice for travel from 

Chicago to Omaha. 

5.8 Noise and Vibration

Analysis results for the Build Alternative show 5,172 moderate and 2,373 severe noise impacts 

compared to existing conditions. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, a low incremental 

increase in new noise impacts per mile associated with the Build Alternative would occur: 

569 moderate and 271 severe noise impacts over an approximately 500-mile corridor. The Build 

Alternative is projected to result in approximately 1.1 new moderate noise impacts per mile, 

0.6 new severe noise impact per mile, and a combined total of 1.7 new noise impacts per mile 

over approximately 500 miles. On this basis, the incremental increase in train noise is not 

significant.

Of the 7,545 new noise impacts predicted to occur under the Selected Alternative, 3,260 of them 

are attributed to locomotive horn use, and they occur in areas where locomotive horns are 

currently in use outside of designated quiet zones. The analysis does not account for any change 

in at-grade intersections to grade-separated intersections where horns would not be required. 

Implementing quiet zones has the potential to further reduce these impacts. Because of the 

preliminary nature of this Tier 1 analysis and the acknowledgement that upgrade of some atgrade intersections would be known during Tier 2, these grade-crossing impacts are not 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

21

considered significant. The remaining 4,285 noise impacts attributable to the Selected 

Alternative are associated with wayside noise and are spread throughout the corridor (equivalent 

to less than one noise impact per mile), which makes mitigation challenging and potentially 

impractical in some areas based on the consideration of feasibility and reasonableness of noise 

barriers for a few receptors. Given the minimal number of noise impacts per mile, and the 

potential that many of the impacts may not occur either through conversion of at-grade 

intersections to grade-separate intersections or through use of quiet zones, noise impacts, 

whether the Project is built or not, are not considered significant. 

The ground-borne vibration analysis identified approximately 7.0 vibration impacts per mile 

associated with the Selected Alternative. On a Project-wide basis, approximately 7.0 additional 

vibration impacts (due to 14 daily pass-by events) per mile are not considered significant. 

However, the number of vibration impacts is projected to dramatically increase in more densely 

populated portions of the study area, particularly where train speeds may reach 100 mph. The 

magnitude of the increase in vibration impacts attributable to the Project is considered to be 

significant. 

During the Tier 2 NEPA process, measures to mitigate ground-borne vibration would be 

evaluated. Minimizing locomotive horn use would be the greatest opportunity to mitigate 

potential noise impacts. Other mitigation measures could include upgrading of some electronic 

circuitry through installation of constant time circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade 

roadway-rail crossings. Municipalities can choose to initiate the process of developing quiet 

zones to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the Project. 

5.9 Air Quality

Impacts on air quality are unavoidable because the Selected Alternative would include new train 

service. However, impacts on emissions, energy consumption, and climate change would be 

beneficial overall because this additional rail service is anticipated to replace some passenger 

vehicles, and bus and plane trips along a similar route. Trains produce fewer emissions per 

passenger than other modes of transportation. Year 2040 projections indicate that operation of 

the Selected Alternative would directly impact the air quality by reducing hydrocarbon (HC) 

emissions by approximately 142 tons per year and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 

approximately 2.7 tons per year. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emission, would decrease by approximately 23,513 tons per year. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

emissions, the only GHG emission that would increase with the Selected Alternative, would 

increase by approximately 420 tons/year. 

A general conformity analysis included the assessment of air quality impacts of the Selected 

Alternative in the counties which are currently designated as maintenance or nonattainment, all 

of which are in the Chicago area. The slight increase in NOx emissions is balanced by a 

reduction in emissions of HC, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), 

and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). This reduction would help 

the counties and states with their air quality management. Although the resulting net emissions 

are below the de minimis threshold, this general conformity analysis would need to be verified in 

the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. If the Project were not built, emissions of pollutants generated by 

vehicles and planes are expected to increase due to anticipated worsening traffic congestion.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

22

5.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Because of track and crossing upgrades, the safety of hazardous material transportation by 

freight trains would improve under the Selected Alternative along the entire Corridor, and would 

experience minor improvements under the No-Build Alternative between Chicago and the Quad 

Cities as a result of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program. The Selected Alternative 

would impact three National Priority List (NPL) Superfund sites, 27 non-NPL sites, 34 Leaking 

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, and one wastewater treatment facility. 

Although the Selected Alternative is within the contamination areas of three NPL sites, specific 

impacts would not be determined until the Tier 2 NEPA studies. The potential for exposure to 

hazardous waste contamination during construction may vary. The Des Moines TCE Site, and 

the Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination Site (in Des Moines), have both gone through 

cleanup activities. However, the cleanup of contaminated soils in the Omaha Lead Site includes 

only residential yards, public parks, playgrounds, and child care facilities. Consequently, the 

Corridor, extending primarily through industrial use areas within the boundaries of the Omaha 

Lead Site, could have some residual lead contamination in the soil at that location.

5.11 Cultural Resources

The Potential Impact Area, which accounts for the area potentially disturbed by construction,

includes 60 historic resources (37 buildings, 1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic districts) 

either listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. Direct impacts on NRHP resources could occur within the Potential Impact Area, and 

indirect impacts (such as visual and noise impacts) on historic resources could occur within the 

APE. As the Project proceeds into the Tier 2 NEPA process, avoidance of these properties would 

be considered. 

Based on a review of cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), resources 

outside but near the Potential Impact Area were also reviewed for indirect impacts, such as visual 

intrusion or audible impacts, as a result of construction activities and future operation of the 

passenger rail system. Depending on the proximity of cultural resources to operating trains, 

structures may be identified for protection from noise and vibration impacts and incompatible 

visual intrusions. If the Project would have potential adverse effects on historic properties, 

further Section 106 consultation would be carried out during the Tier 2 process to determine the 

preferred method of treatment (mitigation).

5.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 parks, 24 recreational resources, and 22 natural areas. In 

most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the Potential Impact Area, 

which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design refinement and likely reduction 

of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. There are three parks (Tiffin City Park in Tiffin, Iowa; 

Twin Creek Park in Pleasant Hill, Iowa; and Waterworks Park in Des Moines, Iowa) and two 

natural areas (Zoo Woods Forest Preserve in Riverside, Illinois, and Correll Wildlife Area near 

Adair, Iowa) that are transected by the Selected Alternative. In addition, there are six locations 

where there are parks, recreation areas, or natural areas on opposite sides of the Selected 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

23

Alternative. Avoidance of these properties would be considered in the Tier 2 analysis and 

unavoidable impacts will be further analyzed in the Tier 2 and Section 4(f) NEPA documents. 

5.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties

The Potential Impact Area, which includes land likely to be disturbed during construction and 

thereby resources on which the Project would have direct effects, includes 44 public parks, 

21 public recreational resources, 8 public refuges, and 60 private and public historic properties. 

In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the Potential Impact 

Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design refinement and likely 

reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. In some cases, resources protected by 

Section 4(f) would be transected by the Potential Impact Area, including three parks and two 

natural areas. Further evaluation of the potential impacts will be addressed during Tier 2 

analysis when more details of the design and operation are known.

As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of these properties would be considered 

and unavoidable potential impacts would be further analyzed. 

The Potential Impact Area also includes three individual parks and five park districts or 

community park departments that received Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). 

During Tier 2 analysis, coordination will occur with the administering agencies to determine if 

lands within the Potential Impact Area were improved with LWCF funding. If any areas are 

considered to be LWCF lands, potential impacts will be addressed during Tier 2 analysis.

5.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality

Only small portions of visual/scenic resources would be within the Potential Impact Area 

because additional ROW would be abutting the existing ROW rather than being on new 

alignment. As a result, alteration of these resources and effects on the views of those resources 

would most likely be minimal. In addition, the expansive Mississippi and Missouri Rivers would 

provide unique scenic views as the passenger trains travel on the bridges over these water 

resources. Views of scenic resources would also be provided by adjacent parks, recreation areas, 

natural areas (including the Loess Hills), perennial stream corridors, historic buildings, and 

views of urban and rural small town character. The Selected Alternative follows existing 

railroad alignments and would travel by residential areas containing sensitive visual receptors. 

However, those residents are currently accustomed to views of the railroad facilities. Des 

Moines Design Option 3 would result in visual impacts to the sensitive visual receptors in the 

neighborhood that it would bisect. 

5.15 Waterways and Water Bodies

The Selected Alternative would cross, or otherwise impact, approximately 104,150 linear feet of 

waterways. In addition, 32 acres of lakes and 33 acres of ponds would potentially be impacted. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

24

5.16 Wetlands

Based on National Wetlands Inventory mapping, there would be potential impacts on 

approximately 1 acre of aquatic bed wetland, 84 acres of emergent wetlands, 33 acres of scrubshrub wetlands, and 120 acres of forested wetlands, totaling 238 acres of potential wetland 

impacts within the Potential Impact Area. As the Project proceeds into the Tier 2 NEPA 

analyses, wetland impacts will most likely be reduced as actual ROW requirements are 

determined and minimized where practicable. 

5.17 Water Quality

The Selected Alternative would cross 24 of the 28 streams on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 

(water quality limited waters) within the Study Area. The Selected Alternative could potentially 

affect the water quality of several water resources. Potential water quality impacts could be 

caused by soil erosion from stormwater runoff, fill material placed in water resources, and 

construction of bridges and culverts or culvert extensions. In addition, potential pollutant runoff 

and spills from operation and maintenance activities could potentially reach adjacent water 

resources. The avoidance or minimization of water quality impacts would be accomplished in 

appropriate areas by the use of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and adherence to 

federal and state water quality requirements. 

5.18 Floodplains

The Selected Alternative would cross and permanently encroach on several 100-year floodplain 

areas as a result of adding track and siding, bridge additions or replacements, and culvert 

replacements or extensions. Approximately 1,657 acres of 100-year floodplains would be within 

the Potential Impact Area. During the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination with the State 

Emergency Management Agencies (SEMAs), the Department of Natural Resourcess of each 

state, and local floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain development 

permitting and potential mitigation measures. In accordance with Executive Order 11988, 

discussions would include avoidance and minimization measures such as restoring natural and 

beneficial floodplain values, significant changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential 

for incompatible floodplain development.

5.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils

The topographic conditions are not expected to pose an adverse challenge to the Selected 

Alternative since it is adjacent to an existing railroad grade, and minimal cut and fill would be 

required. Bedrock encountered in the Potential Impact Area would increase construction costs, 

but would not be an insurmountable challenge for the Project. In addition, the Selected 

Alternative would not impact the underground mining entrances located in the Des Moines, Iowa 

area. The Selected Alternative would have minor impacts on the Loess Hills landform area as a 

result of adding track and siding in the northeast portion of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The grading 

operations of the Selected Alternative would impact various soil types, most of which are silt 

loams and silty clay loams, which would not pose adverse construction challenges. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

25

5.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife

It is estimated that approximately 178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat areas would be directly 

impacted by the Selected Alternative, in addition to the aquatic habitats (waterways, water 

bodies, wetlands) previously discussed. Because the proposed widening activities abut the 

existing ROW, impacts from the Selected Alternative would be relatively minimal and linear, 

and would not further fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas. 

The wildlife species that are present along the Corridor have been continually exposed to train 

traffic in varying degrees. However, improvements of the Build Alternative—including new 

continuously welded rail track, and new trains and equipment having less overall weight than 

freight trains—would result in less noise and vibration than the existing train noise and vibration 

that the resident and migratory species have been experiencing. It is therefore anticipated that 

impacts from noise and vibration would be negligible. The potential effects of noise and 

vibration, and potential train collisions with migratory birds and other wildlife, which can vary 

considerably among species, will be further analyzed during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, in 

coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state resource agencies. 

During the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, coordination with USFWS, the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources (Illinois DNR), Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR), and Nebraska 

Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) will take place to determine potential locations of 

migratory bird and/or eagle occupancy within the Study Area, in addition to determining 

seasonal nesting, roosting, and foraging requirements of potentially affected wildlife species. The 

increase in train traffic and railroad ROW could also increase the chances of water 

quality/pollutant-related impacts on wildlife and their habitats. 

5.21 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Selected Alternative would have no impacts on designated critical habitats (DCHs) of any 

federally listed threatened or endangered species. It is also possible that one or more new bridge 

structures could be needed across the Missouri River, which is suitable habitat for the federally 

endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and piping plover species (Charadrius 

melodus). In addition, it is likely that the upland and riparian woodland areas in the Iowa 

counties of the Study Area may potentially provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the 

endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), although there is no DCH for this species in the Study 

Area. The Selected Alternative would result in minimal linear impacts to wooded areas, rather 

than fragmenting large parcels of woodlands. The Selected Alternative would also result in

minor linear impacts on the Eola Road Marsh, which contains habitat for four state-listed 

endangered species. 

The potential for train collisions with threatened or endangered species, and potential effects of 

noise and vibration, which can vary considerably among various species, will be further analyzed 

during the Tier 2 NEPA process for the Selected Alternative, in coordination with USFWS and 

state resource agencies. The potential for impacts from erosion and sedimentation, pollutant 

runoff and spills, and temporary construction impacts will also be further analyzed in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

26

Field surveys and coordination with USFWS, Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC will take 

place during the Tier 2 NEPA studies to determine the potential for the existence of, and impacts 

on, threatened or endangered species in the Study Area. 

5.22 Energy Use and Climate Change

Implementation of the Selected Alternative would have the potential to provide energy savings 

and would reduce the transportation system’s impact on GHG emissions. Based on a 

preliminary passenger rail forecast, the Selected Alternative would provide a net reduction on 

energy consumption and GHG emissions through diverted trips from automobiles, buses, and 

trains to new passenger rail service. Ridership and modal diversion forecasts indicate that the 

Selected Alternative would decrease automobile traffic by approximately 646.3 million 

passenger-miles per year and reduce bus travel by approximately 153.6 million passenger-miles 

per year. CO2, the main GHG emission, would decrease by approximately 23,513 tons per year. 

Although new passenger trains would consume approximately 17.1 million gallons of fuel per 

year, automobile fuel consumption would decrease by approximately 17.8 million gallons per 

year. If the Project were not built, passenger train service would not be as readily available to 

the public west of Moline, resulting in the continued reliance of automobiles, buses, and planes 

for transportation for this portion of the Study Area. As a result, energy consumption and GHG 

emissions would likely continue to steadily increase.

5.23 Construction Impacts

Typical main line improvements for the Selected Alternative include construction of an 

additional track through much of the Study Area to increase rail capacity and limit conflicts with 

existing rail operations. Other construction activities include an upgrade of the rails, cross ties, 

signalization, and grade crossing protection throughout the Potential Impact Area. Construction 

of these improvements would result in temporary construction impacts, including increases in 

waste disposal, potential impacts to water quality, air quality, increased noise levels, vibration, 

dust, traffic congestion, visual changes, disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods, and 

safety issues. 

5.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Construction of the Selected Alternative would result in the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of land where additional ROW is needed. The land would be converted from its 

current condition to a railroad grade and track. Construction materials would consist largely of 

steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. Whereas the use of these materials would be largely 

irretrievable, these resources are not in short supply and many of the materials could be recycled 

for other projects when they no longer meet the design needs for passenger rail service. Several 

energy resources would be committed to the Project, including petroleum, natural gas, electrical, 

and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and maintenance. These resources are 

generally irretrievable. 

5.25 Short-Term Use Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment

The Selected Alternative could contribute to potential short-term construction impacts related to 

hazardous materials and waste disposal, water quality, air quality, noise and vibration, property 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

27

access, and traffic and pedestrian delays/detours. In addition, short-term employment, use of 

materials to construct the Project, and purchases of goods and services generated by Project 

construction could create a short-term increase in the local economy that would end once the 

construction phase is completed. 

In the region between Chicago and Omaha, the addition and enhancement of passenger rail 

service would contribute to improvements in the transportation network and access within the 

region by providing competitive passenger rail service that would meet the needs of increased 

future travel demand and more efficient travel between major urban centers. With the Selected 

Alternative, long-term benefits would include a reduction in air pollution emissions as a result of 

passenger rail service replacing automobile, bus, and plane trips; and decreased congestion on 

local streets and highways. Other long-term benefits would include improved accessibility 

within the region, economic benefits through employment opportunities, potential for transitoriented development, increased economic activity, improvements in safety for at-grade 

crossings.

In addition to some permanent impacts to waterways, water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, plant 

communities, natural habitat, and wildlife; other long-term losses/effects on the productivity of 

the environment would include the following:

• Removal of existing farmland from productivity

• Reduction of the local tax base as a result of acquiring farmland, commercial, and 

industrial property for additional railroad ROW

• Potential economic impacts on other modes of public transportation

• Potential acquisition of park land, recreation land, and natural areas

• Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors

• Collision impacts on wildlife 

5.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Construction and operation associated with any phase of the Selected Alternative has the 

potential to cause indirect impacts. The following is a summary of potential indirect impacts 

identified through evaluation of various environmental resources: 

• Increased noise and ground vibration, as well as air emissions, and visual and 

aesthetic impacts could potentially result in indirect impacts of reduced use of nearby 

parks, recreation areas, and natural areas. Section 4(f) properties could be indirectly 

affected by noise, ground vibration, aesthetics, and access issues. Additionally, there 

could be indirect impacts on wildlife through reduced use of areas near train 

operations. Threatened or endangered species could potentially be indirectly affected 

by air emissions and water quality impacts affecting habitat.

• Indirect effect of reducing ridership on current transportation services, such as 

intercity bus and flight service, by offering a competitive alternative to these modes.

Diverted trips from these modes to passenger rail service may have implications to 

the viability of these modes in the future. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

28

• Potential indirect positive impacts include a slight reduction in vehicular congestion 

on I-88 and I-80 within the Study Area. This would have positive impacts on air 

quality, safety and reduce future delays due to congestion. 

• Commencement of passenger service and modification of at-grade crossings could 

indirectly affect traffic flow from previous traffic conditions.

• Increased chance of a hazardous material incident, which could also affect water 

quality as railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations and 

maintenance activities could reach water resources adjacent to, or downstream of the 

project area. 

• Noise and vibration from passenger rail traffic could cause indirect impacts to cultural 

resources by affecting visitor experience. Induced transit-oriented development in the 

vicinity of station areas may indirectly affect nearby cultural resources.

• Potential indirect impacts to downstream water bodies and wetlands could occur from 

culvert and/or bridge replacements.

• Transit-oriented development could result indirectly from the construction and use of 

station locations.

• Indirect impacts on adjacent land uses from changes in traffic flow at rail crossings 

and near future station sites. Temporary traffic indirect impacts would occur through 

closings during construction and rerouting traffic through adjacent neighborhoods and 

business areas. Increased travel time and delay for local residents and potential 

economic impacts to businesses that depend on convenient accessibility. Potential 

increased congestion and traffic delays near crossings with new passenger rail 

service. 

• Temporary increase in GHG emissions from construction activities from on-site 

equipment as well as increased delays and congestion from automobile and bus 

traffic. 

• Indirect positive impacts on air quality from contributing to the development of a 

more complete multi-modal transportation system within the Study Area and 

encouraging changes in long-term travel behavior and advocacy for more energy 

efficient modes of transport that improve air quality. 

• Upgrades to rail infrastructure may indirectly benefit existing freight service.

Cumulative impacts from other projects in the region would also occur. The majority of projects 

are linear transportation projects, often occurring either in existing ROW or adjacent to existing 

ROW. It is likely that many of these projects would be affecting drainage and could involve 

impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In rural areas, it is likely that the other projects 

may be affecting farmland, natural areas, and wildlife habitat primarily through expansion of 

existing corridors. 

When considered collectively with other projects in the region, the Selected Alternative would 

have a slight beneficial contribution to cumulative impacts by improving overall air quality and 

reducing roadway congestion and would have the potential for increased transit-oriented 

development. Should construction of this Project occur simultaneously with some of the other 

projects in the region, existing passenger and freight rail services could see temporary increases 

in delays and congestion, but overall train traffic would be maintained throughout construction. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

29

Many of the other transportation projects are improvements along existing alignments, with 

reconstruction or other modifications occurring either within or adjacent to existing ROW. 

Therefore, new impacts of the other projects outside existing ROW would be relatively narrow 

and linear. Consequently, cumulative impacts on resources within a designated area, such as a 

watershed or ecosystem, would likely be minor. 

The majority of the Selected Alternative corridor is in rural areas dominated by farmland uses. 

Highly developed areas are also present along the corridor. Land use throughout the Corridor is 

likely to remain unchanged with the implementation of the Selected Alternative and other 

projects. Suburban areas associated with large cities such as Chicago and Des Moines are likely 

to incur the most change in land use with a potential for cumulative impacts because of the land 

available for modification in areas where population is increasing.

Given the numerous planned transportation projects, air quality, mobility, and safety would 

cumulatively benefit. Minimal cumulative negative impacts associated with these projects would 

likely occur on farmland, habitat, wetlands, and streams along the Selected Alternative.

Station development associated with the Project has the potential to result in induced 

development in close proximity to the stations. However, station locations will be selected 

through coordinated efforts with local city/county/metropolitan area planners to help ensure that 

the sites and opportunities presented for growth development are suitable to handle increased 

traffic and other demands, minimizing the potential for adverse cumulative impacts. 

5.27 Interim Implementation Phase Impacts

As discussed previously, the interim implementation phase of the Project is the last phase that 

would be implemented within the 20-year planning horizon of the SDP. A qualitative review was 

performed for the impacts that the interim implementation phase would have on each resource 

previously reviewed for impacts under full implementation of the Selected Alternative.

The interim implementation phase was evaluated based on two main categories of activities 

likely to cause environmental impacts: 1) ROW acquisition and construction (footprintdependent impacts); and 2) operation and maintenance of the system. Some resources were 

evaluated individually, and some were addressed in aggregate. In addition, some resources 

would be affected by only one category, and some resources would be affected by both 

categories. For example, natural habitats and wildlife can be directly affected by vegetation 

removal as a result of ROW acquisition and construction impacts, and can also be affected by 

train operations as a result of animal collision impacts. The interim implementation phase would 

be a step toward full implementation (which would have the greatest Project impacts), less ROW 

acquisition and construction would be required in this phase, and fewer operations and slower 

speeds would occur. Consequently, adverse environmental impacts would be less than for full 

implementation of the Project, and are discussed qualitatively in comparison to the estimated 

impacts of full implementation (previously described in the sections above). In addition, any 

beneficial impacts that would result from the interim implementation phase, such as reduced 

cumulative air emissions from more efficient transportation of people, would not occur to the 

same extent as under full implementation of service. A more detailed discussion of the impacts

on each resource is presented in Section 3.28 in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

30

5.28 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures

Table 5-2 introduces potential mitigation for impacts to resources that would result from full 

implementation of the Project, as identified through the Tier 1 NEPA process. Specific 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction. 

Table 5-2. Potential Mitigation

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Transportation

Signal upgrades to address safety concerns at intersections and to limit 

disruption of existing freight rail service. Traffic Control and Safety plan 

for construction. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will 

be discussed in Tier 2 NEPA documents.

Land Use, Zoning, and 

Property Acquisition

Where property acquisition cannot be avoided, the provisions of the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act 

will be followed. During Tier 2 analyses, the extent of land use, zoning, 

and property acquisition impacts will be analyzed for potential mitigation 

issues that may be identified through agency coordination and public 

involvement.

Agricultural Resources

As part of the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination would take place with the 

NRCS. Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for 

Corridor Type Projects, would be required to determine if farmland impacts 

are above the threshold level for consideration of farmland protection 

measures. 

Socioeconomic Environment

In the Tier 2 analysis, strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential 

impacts on socioeconomic conditions (neighborhoods, community facilities, 

businesses, employment) will be considered. In addition, public 

involvement and agency coordination activities may result in identification 

of potential mitigation needs.

Title VI and Environmental 

Justice

Potential mitigation measures will be determined in the Tier 2 NEPA 

studies, if it is determined that adverse human health or environmental 

effects occur to minority and/or low-income populations, and if those 

effects are determined to be disproportionately high. 

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

Adverse impacts on the elderly and people with disabilities could be 

mitigated by providing beneficial ADA compliant services and facilities 

for those populations. A more detailed analysis of adverse impacts on the 

elderly and disabled populations, mitigation measures, and the public 

involvement process will be provided in the Tier 2 NEPA documents. 

Public Health and Safety

The Tier 2 NEPA studies will address safety measures and strategies to 

protect the health and safety of passengers, as well as motor vehicles and 

pedestrians, at existing or new at-grade crossings. 

Noise and Vibration

Minimizing locomotive horn use would be the greatest opportunity to 

mitigate potential noise impacts. Other mitigation measures could include 

upgrading of some electronic circuitry through installation of constant time 

circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade roadway-rail crossings. 

Municipalities can choose to initiate the process of developing quiet zones 

to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the Project. During the 

Tier 2 NEPA process, measures to mitigate ground-borne vibration would

be evaluated.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

31

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Air Quality

During the Tier 2 NEPA studies, mitigation to reduce NOx emissions would 

be considered and investigated, such as converting fleet vehicles from diesel 

fuel to alternative fuels, or the feasibility of implementing idling restrictions 

for locomotives at station stops and maintenance facilities. All emissions 

are below their de minimis thresholds for the nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. General air quality conformity analysis modeling may 

be required in Tier 2 NEPA documents to verify these findings.

Hazardous Waste and Waste 

Disposal

Potential impacts on or from NPL Superfund sites and other non-NPL sites 

will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 NEPA studies, to determine level of 

risk and potential mitigation or cleanup procedures. Mitigation 

requirements may include safety procedures and protection of human 

health and the environment to help ensure that there would be no further 

contamination of adjacent sites, and to provide a safe working environment 

during construction. In addition, solid waste materials generated during 

construction could be recycled or properly disposed of.

Cultural Resources

If, during the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents, it is determined that 

the project will adversely affect NRHP-eligible historic resources, 

mitigation measures may be developed in accordance with the terms of a 

Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement between FRA and 

consulting parties, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

and State Historic Preservation Officers. 

Parks and Federally or StateListed Natural AreasSpecific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified. 

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties

During the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents, minimization and 

mitigation measures for adverse impacts and uses of protected resources 

will be determined, to the extent required, through consultation with the 

official of the agency owning or administering the resource. Minimization 

of harm could include alternative design that lessens the impact on Section 

4(f) resources and/or mitigation measures that compensate for residual 

impacts.

For 6(f) LWCF lands that cannot be avoided, mitigation would include 

replacement property that is of at least equal fair market value as the 

impacted property, and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation 

purposes. 

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Through continued public involvement, residents’ concerns about the 

potential views of the railroad facilities will be identified. Mitigation and 

impact minimization efforts will be addressed in more detail in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. Mitigation could include consideration of potential 

measures such as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of the scenic 

resources, visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential 

areas, appropriate design of aesthetic features, and landscaping that would 

complement and blend with the context of the surrounding visual 

environment. 

Waterways, Water Bodies, and 

Wetlands

Mitigation options for unavoidable impacts on waterways, water bodies, 

and wetlands will be discussed in more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. Mitigation measures could include mitigation banking, in-lieu 

fees, and on-site or off-site mitigation. During the design process, 

coordination will take place with the USACE and appropriate state resource 

agencies to develop mitigation strategies. The mitigation strategies to be

identified and selected would account for the fact that not all mitigation 

options are available to all states and USACE Districts. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

32

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Water Quality

The Tier 2 NEPA documents would address mitigation measures and 

control of pollutants and sediments in regard to the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and stormwater Best Management Practices 

(BMPs). In addition, each state’s required Section 401 Water Quality 

Certifications would be addressed. Mitigation for impacts on mapped or 

unmapped water wells, including proper abandonment of the wells (such as 

plugging and sealing) to prevent groundwater pollution would also be 

addressed. 

Floodplains

During the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination with the State Emergency 

Management Agencies (SEMAs), the DNRs of each state, and local 

floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain 

development permitting and potential mitigation measures. In accordance 

with Executive Order 11988, discussions would include avoidance and 

minimization measures such as restoring natural and beneficial floodplain 

values, significant changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential for 

incompatible floodplain development.

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils

No requirements for mitigation related to topographic, geologic, and soil 

conditions are anticipated, with the exception of impacts on the Loess Hills, 

which could include buffer zones and re-establishing native vegetation. 

Specific impacts and potential mitigation measures will be investigated and 

evaluated in further detail in the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

Natural Habitats and Wildlife

During the Tier 2 process, avoidance and minimization of impacts would be 

assessed, and unavoidable impacts to natural habitats and migratory birds 

would be coordinated with USFWS and state resource agencies to 

determine compliance with regulatory requirements and potential mitigation 

measures to offset impacts, which could include restrictions on construction 

activities in specific areas during the breeding/nesting seasons. 

Coordination with Iowa DNR would also take place regarding mitigation of 

woodland impacts, which require replacement according to Iowa Code 

314.23, Environmental Protection. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

During the Tier 2 process, Section 7 consultation with USFWS would take 

place to determine whether or not the Project could have the potential to 

affect a federally listed species, and if so, whether or not the activity would 

adversely affect (jeopardize the continued existence of) a listed species. 

Mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse impacts would be determined 

as part of the formal Section 7 consultation. 

Avoidance and minimization of impacts on state-listed species would also 

be assessed during the Tier 2 NEPA documents. If it is determined that 

unavoidable impacts on state-listed species would occur, coordination with

the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC, as appropriate, would take place 

to determine potential mitigation measures. 

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Mitigation may not be required for energy and climate change due to the 

positive impact and the diverted trips from other modes of transportation, 

lowering the overall amount of CO2 emissions along the Study Area. 

Verification will be made during the Tier 2 NEPA studies.
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

33

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Construction Impacts

Impacts from construction activities will be reviewed and mitigation will be 

considered during the development of the Tier 2 NEPA documents. The 

potential for Project construction impacts may be mitigated through 

measures such as the following:

• Waste Disposal – Recycling and properly disposing of construction 

debris.

• Water Quality – Management of stormwater runoff through 

implementation of BMPs.

• Air Quality – Adherence to construction permit conditions and all 

state and local regulations in regard to emissions and exhaust, 

fugitive dust, and burning of debris. 

• Noise and Vibration – Equipping and maintaining muffling 

equipment for construction machinery, and limiting times of day 

for various construction activities. 

• Access – Development of a traffic mitigation plan for construction 

sequencing.

• Traffic and Safety –developing and implementing a traffic control 

and safety plan.

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific indirect and cumulative impacts are 

identified.

6.0 Permits

Construction of the Project would likely require the following federal, state, and local permits 

and approvals:

• Section 404 Permit – USACE (Waters of the U.S. impacts)

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)

• Section 9 Bridge Permit – USCG (navigable waters)

• Section 10 Permit – USACE (impacts in navigable waters)

• Section 402 NPDES Permit – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ (land disturbance and 

stormwater runoff)

• Section 408 Approval – USACE (impacts to levees/flood control structures)

• Floodplain Development Permit – DNRs of each state, and local jurisdictions

• Air Pollution Control Permits – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR Part 

61 – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• Iowa Sovereign Lands Construction Permit – Iowa DNR

• Formal Notice and Airspace Review – Federal Aviation Administration
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

34

7.0 Summary of Comments on the Tier 1 Final EIS

During the 30-day waiting period following the publication of the Tier 1 Final EIS, FRA 

received one letter from the USEPA. The letter is attached in Appendix A: 

Summary of Final EIS Comments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 7

Issue Comment Response

Agency 

Coordination, EIS 

Process, Rail 

(Operations), Tier 2

Cumulative Impacts, 

Tier 2

Right-of-Way, 

Alternatives 

Screening, Impact 

Assessment

1. Region 5 has expressed concern with the Wyanet area that is 

planned to be developed for ancillary facility and the location 

of a new rail-to-rail connection. This area is slated as 

potentially having a rail yard, passenger station, train idling 

area, parking, etc. In the Draft Tier 1 EIS, we asked that 

additional information be included in the next phase of 

analysis. The Final Tier 1 EIS does not provide any further 

details, only stating that this facility will be further analyzed in 

the “Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program Tier 2 NEPA 

document.” This NEPA document was not mentioned in the 

Chicago to Omaha Draft Tier 1 EIS that was submitted. Since 

the Chicago to Quad Cities project is part of the Chicago to 

Omaha rail line project, why is it going to be analyzed in a 

different, never before referenced document? We also ask that 

these environmental and health concerns relevant to the Wyanet 

area be addressed for both direct and indirect impacts.

2. Union Station in Chicago, Illinois is a major hub for existing 

Metra commuter rail and Amtrak services, and is proposed to 

be the hub for many new high speed rail services. This Final 

Tier 1 EIS does not discuss the cumulative effects on Union 

Station from multiple new rail services. Currently, there are 

plans for high-speed rail lines from Chicago Union Station to 

Detroit, St. Louis, and Minneapolis, in addition to Omaha. 

Cumulative analysis of environmental and health impacts 

within and around Union Station will need to be considered, as 

well as the impact that the additional routes, passengers, traffic 

and usage will have on Union Stations Metra daily commuters 

and Amtrak services. Impacts to train operations, train storage, 

platform capacity and Amtrak support services all need to be 

analyzed in Tier 2. Union Station is already congested handling 

the current capacity of passengers and trains. Tier 2 should 

discuss how Union Station will accommodate expanded future 

use. 

3. EPA’s previous comments on the Draft Tier 1 EIS pertaining 

to Right of Way were not addressed. “Coarse and Fine level 

screening occurred within corridors that were 500 foot wide 

and 100 foot wide (plus a buffer of 25-50 feet), respectively 

(ES. 3.2.1, ES. 3.2.2.2). However the table of impacts (ES-1) 

does not clearly indicate at what scale the potential impacts are 

accounted. EPA recommends that the Tier 2 EIS more clearly 

describe the study envelopes of: existing Right of Way, Right 

of Way (plus and additional included study area) for the fine 

screening, and the 500 foot study area in the coarse screening.

The Chicago to Quad Cities route was introduced in Section 1.1 

of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, and the Expansion Program was 

discussed in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS as part of the 

definition of the No Build Alternative. The Chicago to Quad 

Cities service would be initiated as a section of a separate, 

stand-alone project (Chicago to Iowa City), independent of but 

along the same alignment as the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Project. Page 3-2 of the Tier 1 Draft EIS indicated that 

the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program was being 

evaluated at a Tier 2 level of analysis in three separate projects. 

Page 3-2 also noted that impacts of the Chicago to Quad Cities 

Expansion Program were being accounted for in both the NoBuild Alternative and Build Alternative for the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha project at a Tier 1 level of analysis, and 

potential environmental and health concerns along the entire 

corridor were documented in the Tier 1 EIS. Illinois DOT and 

FRA are currently conducting Tier 2 studies for the Chicago to 

Quad Cities Expansion Program and will assess impacts based 

on detailed design and facility decisions not yet made during 

Tier 1. The Wyanet area will include a new rail-to-rail 

connection, but no other facilities. 

Chicago Union Station (CUS) is critical to a number of routes 

for various proposed passenger rail projects. FRA and Illinois 

DOT recognize that the evaluation of congestion at and 

capacity of Union Station would need to be addressed in a 

separate study. The findings of the study would be used to help 

characterize cumulative impacts at CUS for the Tier 2 

document including CUS.

The Potential Impact Area used to estimate impacts 

summarized in Table ES-1 and Table 2-4 was described on 

page 3-1 of the Tier 1 Draft EIS; the dimensions vary 

throughout the approximately 475-mile-long corridor to 

account for flexibility in optimizing the design of the railroad 

system as more is learned during Tier 2. The Potential Impact 

Area boundaries are shown on figures in Appendix B. During 

development of detailed design as part of future Tier 2 work, 

the current right-of-way boundaries and future ROW needs will 

be better defined, shown, and described in Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. The Study Area boundaries will be revisited during 

Tier 2 if necessary to account for design optimization. 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

35

Issue Comment Response

Air Quality, Tier 2

Project Integration, 

Agency 

Coordination

4. The document states that high speed rail will decrease the 

amount of air pollution as compared to air travel. The Final 

Tier 1 EIS does not substantiate this statement by including any 

data or data analysis. EPA recommends the inclusion of such 

data and/or a summarization of data comparing the two modes 

of travel and their impacts to air quality in future documents.

5. Furthermore, with the increased spending in infrastructure 

and transportation, EPA suggests working with Department of 

Energy to determine if projects can be combined to provide 

common corridors for high speed rail and electric transmission. 

Several large projects are already underway to build solar, 

wind, and hydropower plants in the Midwest and West. DOE 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural Development) 

are looking for ROW to bring this electricity to cities and rural 

communities. Could future rail projects combine the acquisition 

of land to include right-of-way for electrical transmission lines 

and rail?

The Tier 1 Final EIS does not explain how the proposed 

Chicago to Omaha high-speed rail service will be integrated 

with existing Amtrak service west of Omaha, to and from 

California. Will trains to and from the West Coast use the 

existing Amtrak route to Chicago via Burlington, Iowa, or will 

West Coast service be routed on the proposed Chicago to 

Omaha high-speed rail line via Des Moines and the Quad 

Cities? If the latter, how will high-speed and non-high-speed 

train services be integrated?

Section 3.9 of the Tier 1 Draft ES and Tier 1 Final EIS both 

provide air emissions estimations for general conformity 

determination purposes, and for changes in air pollutants from 

diversion of passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips. Additional 

estimation of air quality impacts will be performed for Tier 2 

studies as warranted.

Thank you for your suggestion concerning an integrated 

approach to future corridor development. USDA was involved 

in early coordination on the project and received copies of the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS and Final EIS. Based on your input, FRA has 

sent a copy of the Final EIS to DOE.

Section 2.2.2.7 of both the Draft EIS and Final EIS note current 

passenger service including the long-distance California 

Zephyr and regional railroads discussed in Section 2.2.1. 

Section 2.2.2.7 further notes that those rail services, as well as 

other forms of long-distance and regional transportation such as 

bus and airplane services would continue to operate in the same 

manner as current operations. There is no plan at this time to 

change the route or timing of the long-distance train from 

Chicago through Omaha in response to the Project. Specific 

integration of regional and local transportation modes with the 

proposed Project services would be speculative at this time. As 

planning continues and if the system moves forward, the 

operator of the system will be defined and opportunities for 

integration will be evaluated and implemented as warranted. 

8.0 Corrections to the Tier 1 Final EIS

There are no changes to the Final EIS.

9.0 Decision

Iowa DOT proposes to implement intercity passenger rail service between Chicago and the 

Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area. The Project would create a competitive passenger rail 

transportation alternative to the available automobile, bus, and air service and would meet needs 

for more efficient travel between major urban centers by decreasing travel times, increasing 

frequency of service, and improving reliability and safety. 

Intercity passenger rail service would provide an option to highway and air travel between major 

urban centers in the face of a growing and aging population and increasing congestion on 

Midwest highways and at Midwest airports. The majority of automobile travelers, as well as

truck drivers, use I-80 and I-88, contributing to substantial safety and congestion concerns on 

those roadways and in adjacent communities. Vehicle miles traveled in Iowa on I-80 are 

projected to increase substantially, and if no capacity improvements are made, nearly 75 percent 

of I-80 in Iowa would be bordering on unstable traffic flow, at or beyond capacity, resulting in 

stop-and-go traffic conditions in Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha. There is an increase in travel 

demand resulting from a population that is increasing and becoming more urbanized, and that is 
Record of Decision August 2013

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement: 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study 

36

aging and is increasingly seeking competitive and attractive modes of transportation. 

Implementation of the Project would help address these needs. 

In addition, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 established high-speed 

rail corridor development as an important component of the Nation’s transportation policy. 

Implementation of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System is 

consistent with the Department of Transportation and FRA’s vision of the important role highspeed intercity passenger rail can play in certain travel markets (see Vision for High-Speed Rail 

in America, April 2009, http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833).

The Alternative selected in this ROD will utilize tracks currently owned and operated by four rail 

carriers between Chicago and Omaha: BNSF, IAIS, UP, and Amtrak. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this 

ROD present the considerations and factors balanced by FRA in arriving at this decision. 

FRA, in accordance with CEQ’s regulations implementing NEPA and FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts, finds that the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied for 

the Tier 1EIS for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study.

The environmental record for Tier 1 of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional 

Passenger Rail System Planning Study includes the Draft EIS dated October 2012, the Final EIS 

dated May 2013, and this ROD, which includes comments from the circulation of the Final EIS. 

These documents represent the detailed analysis and findings required by NEPA on the 

following: 

• Environmental impacts of the Project

• Alternatives to the Project

• Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources on the environment that may 

be involved in the Project should it be implemented

On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts contained in the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS and Tier 1 Final EIS, as well as the written and oral comments offered by the 

public and by other agencies, FRA determines that: 

• Adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with a 

significant economic, social, or environmental interest, and fair consideration was 

given to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and to the interest of 

the communities in which the Project is located.

• All reasonable steps were taken to minimize potential adverse environmental effects 

of the Project, and where potential adverse environmental effects remain, they have 

been fully reported in the Tier 1 Draft EIS and the Tier 1 Final EIS and will be further 

evaluated during Tier 2 studies. 

The extensive opportunities provided for public and other stakeholder involvement in planning 

and decision-making are described in the Tier 1 Final EIS and summarized in this ROD. The 

reasonable steps to minimize potential adverse environmental effects are described in the Tier 1 

Final EIS and are detailed as Measures to Avoid and Minimize Harm in this ROD. As outlined in 

Section 5.0 of this ROD, the findings for Section 106, Section 4(f)/6(f), Section 7 endangered 

species, wetlands, floodplains, floodways, and environmental justice will be determined during